How George W.
Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State

Image
from GQ Magazine

[Editor's Note: On April 4, 2005 we corrected Gary North's Phd.
from economics to history. And On
July 30, 2008 we corrected our discussion of Supralapsarianism.]

The First Prince
of the Theocratic States of America

It happened quietly,
with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post
dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance
in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson
resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition.

Behind the scenes
religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed
Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President
of the United States of America to take his rightful place as
the head of the true American Holy Christian Church.

Robertsons
act was symbolic, but it carried a secret and solemn revelation
to the faithful. It was the signal that the Bush administration
was a government under God that was ledby an anointed
President who would be the first regent in a dynasty of regents
awaiting the return of Jesus to earth. The President would now
be the minister through whom God would execute His will in the
nation. George W. Bush accepted his scepter and his sword with
humility, grace and a sense of exultation.

As Antonin Scalia,
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court explained a few months
later, the Bible teaches and Christians believe 
that government derives its moral authority from God. Government
is the minister of God with powers to revenge,
to execute wrath, including even wrath by the sword [3]

George W. Bush
began to wield the sword of Gods revenge with relish from
the beginning of his administration, but most of us missed the
sword play. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase an illustration
from Leo Strauss, the father of the neo-conservative movement,
which gives us a clue of how the hiding is done:

One ought
not to say to those whom one wants to kill, Give me your
votes, because your votes will enable me to kill you and I want
to kill you, but merely, Give me your votes,
for once you have the power of the votes in your hand, you can
satisfy your desire.[4]

Notwithstanding
the advice, the Presidents foreign policy revealed a flair
for saber rattling. He warned the world that nations are
either with us or theyre against us! His speeches,
often containing allusions to biblical passages, were spoken
with the certainty of a man who holds the authority of Gods
wrath on earth, for he not only challenged the evil nations of
the world, singling out Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea as
the axis of evil, but he wielded the sword of punishment
and the sword of revenge against his own people: the American
poor and the middle class who according to the religious right
have earned Gods wrath by their licentiousness and undisciplined
lives.

To the middle class
he said, Im going to give you clear skies clean air
and clean water, then he gutted the environmental controls
that were designed to provide clean air and water. The estimated
number of premature deaths that will result: 100,000.[5] He said to the poor and to the
middle class: Im going to give you a prescription
drug program, one that you truly deserve. Then he gave
the drug industry an estimated $139 billion dollars in increased
profits from the Medicare funds and arranged for the poorest
of seniors to be eliminated from coverage, while most elderly
will pay more for drugs than they paid before his drug benefit
bill passed.[6]
After that he arranged for the dismantling of the Medicare program
entirely, based on the method outlined by his religious mentors.[7] He said
to the people of America, Im going to build a future
for you and your children, then he gutted their future
with tax breaks to the rich and a pre-emptive war against Iraq,
and the largest spending deficit in history.[8]

This article is
the documented story of how a political religious movement called
Dominionism gained control of the Republican Party, then
took over Congress, then took over the White House, and now is
sealing the conversion of America to a theocracy by taking over
the American Judiciary. Its the story of why and
how the wrath of God Almighty will be unleashed against
the middle class, against the poor, and against the elderly and
sick of this nation by George W. Bush and his army of Republican
Dominionist rulers.

How
Dominionism Was Spread

The years 1982-1986
marked the period Pat Robertson and radio and televangelists
urgently broadcast appeals that rallied Christian followers to
accept a new political religion that would turn millions of Christians
into an army of political operatives. It was the period when
the militant church raised itself from centuries of sleep and
once again eyed power.

At the time, most
Americans were completely unaware of the militant agenda being
preached on a daily basis across the breadth and width of America.
Although it was called Christianity it can barely
be recognized as Christian. It in fact was and is a wolf parading
in sheeps clothing: It was and is a political scheme to
take over the government of the United States and then turn that
government into an aggressor nation that will forcibly establish
the United States as the ruling empire of the twenty-first century.
It is subversive, seditious, secretive, and dangerous.[9]

Dominionismis a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism
and is frequently called Christian Reconstructionism.
Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and
to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written
extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism seeks
to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern
by imposing their interpretation of Biblical Law.
He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate
 labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.
Clarkson then describes the creation of new classes of citizens:

Women would
be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian
men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe
is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment [to]
blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.[10]

Today, Dominionists
hide their agenda and have resorted to stealth; one investigator
who has engaged in internet exchanges with people who identify
themselves as religious conservatives said, They cut and
run if I mention the word Dominionism.[11] Joan Bokaer, the Director
of Theocracy Watch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics
and Social Policy at Cornell University wrote, In March
1986, I was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of
the following memo [Pat] Robertson had distributed to the Iowa
Republican County Caucus titled, How to Participate in
a Political Party. It read:

Rule the
world for God.

Give the
impression that you are there to work for the party, not push
an ideology.

Hide your
strength.

Dont
flaunt your Christianity.

Christians
need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political
parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have
a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing.[12]

Dominionists have
gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus
of government throughout the United States; they continue to
operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social
programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously
disguised under false labels that confuse voters. Nevertheless,
as we shall see, Dominionism maintains the necessity of laissez-faire
economics, requiring that people look to God and not
to government for help.[13]

It is estimated
that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian,
adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these
people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their
beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So
successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated
the idea of the existence of an outside enemy, which
is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived
themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian
conspiratorial secular society.

When one examines
the progress of its agenda, one sees that Dominionism has met
its time table: the complete takeover of the American government
was predicted to occur by 2004.[14] Unless the American people reject the GOPs
control of the government, Americans may find themselves living
in a theocracy that has already spelled out its intentions to
change every aspect of American life including its cultural life,
its Constitution and its laws.

Born
in Christian Reconstructionism, which was founded by the late
R. J. Rushdoony, the framers of the new cult included Rushdoony,
his son-in-law Gary North, Pat Robertson, Herb Titus, the former
Dean of Robertsons Regent University School of Public Policy
(formerly CBN University), Charles Colson, Robertsons political
strategist, Tim LaHaye, Gary Bauer, the late Francis Schaeffer,
and Paul Crouch, the founder of TBN, the worlds largest
television network, plus a virtual army of likeminded television
and radio evangelists and news talk show hosts.

Dominionism started
with the Gospels and turned the concept of the invisible and
spiritual Kingdom of God into a literal political
empire that could be taken by force, starting with the United
States of America. Discarding the original message of Jesus and
forgetting that Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this world,
the framers of Dominionism boldly presented a Gospel whose purpose
was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute world
domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for
his earthly rule by his faithful regents.

How
Machiavellianism, Communism, Secular Humanism and Neo-Conservatism
Inspired a New Militant and Evil Anti-Christian Religion

In the fifties
and sixties, right-wing Christians worried about communists and
communism taking over the world. Along with communism, another
enemy to Christianity was identified by ministers. In 1982, Francis
Schaeffer, who was then the leading evangelical theologian, called
Secular Humanism the greatest threat to Christianity the world
had ever seen. Soon American fundamentalists and Pentecostals
were seeing humanists everywhere. Appearing on Pat
Robertsons 700 Club show, Schaeffer claimed that
humanism was being forced on Christians; it taught that man was
the center of all things. Like communism, secular
humanism was based on atheism, which was sufficient enough for
Schaeffer to conclude that humanism was an enemy to the Kingdom
of God.[15]

The enemy
is this other view of reality, Schaeffer spoke emotionally.
Citing the Declaration of Independence as his authorizing document,
he said:

Today we
live in a humanist society. They control the schools. They control
public television. They control the media in general. And what
we have to say is we live in a humanist society .[Because]
the courts are not subject to the will of the people through
elections or re-election all the great changes in the last
forty years have come through the courts. And what we must get
in our mind is the government as a whole, but especially the
courts, has become the vehicle to force this view on the total
population, even if the total population doesnt hold the
view.[16]

Schaeffer
claimed that the major titanic changes to America
occurred since 1942:

If you dont
revolt against tyranny and this is what I call the bottom line,
is that not only do you have the privilege but [you have] the
duty to revolt. When people force upon you and society that which
is absolutely contrary to the Word of God, and which really is
tyranny we have a right to stand against it as a matter
of principle. And this was the basis upon which the founding
fathers built this country.

The appeal to evangelicals
went further. On April 29, 1985, Billy Graham, the respected
and world famous evangelist, told Pat Robertsons audience
on the 700 Club show that:

[T]he time
has come when evangelicals are going to have to think about getting
organized corporately .Im for evangelicals running
for public office and winning if possible and getting control
of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting
control of the executive branch of government. I think if we
leave it to the other side were going to be lost. I would
like to see every true believer involved in politics in some
way shape or form.

According to Schaeffer,
Robertson, and Billy Graham, then arguably the three most famous
and influential leaders in the American protestant church world,
Gods people had a moral duty to change the
government of the United States.[17]

Significantly,
at the time, many other fundamentalist ministers were identifying
communism and secular humanism as religions. However,
the equating of a political ideology on the one hand, and a philosophy
that rejects supernaturalism on the other hand, with religions
was not accidental.[18] It allowed the preachers to revile an economic-political
system as well as a philosophy as false religions, even
demonic religions, which Christians should reject at any
cost.[19]

Underneath the
pejoratives, however, there was a grudging admiration on the
part of Pat Robertson and the other politically astute Dominionists,
for they saw that a political agenda that wrapped itself in religious
robes had the innate power to explode exponentially into the
most politically dynamic movement in American and world history.

The result of the
new religion was that by the year 2000, thirty-five million Americans
would declare war on the remaining 245 million. Karl Rove, President
Bushs political advisor, told the Family Research Council
in 2002, We need to find ways to win the war.[20] One
is tempted to respond, Wait a minute, theyre in power
so why do they need to continue the war? That is
the salient question. The answer is frightening.

Starting with a
simple idea, Robertson perceived the enormous advantage of placing
an otherwise unacceptable political theory into a religious context.
By doing so it would stand Christianity up-side-down and end
American democracy.

A Machiavellian Religion Was Born

American Christianity
had already seen extremes. For Dominionists, perhaps the single
most important event in the last half of the twentieth century
occurred when the Reverend Jim Jones proved that the religious
would follow their leader to Guyana and even further, to their
deaths. That fact could hardly have escaped the notice of
even the dullest of politically minded preachers.

Indeed, Jim Jones
surreal power over his congregants leaps out from the grave even
today. If a man desired to change the laws in Americato
undo Franklin Delano Roosevelts New Deal for instance,
and allow corporations the unbridled freedom they enjoyed prior
to the Great Depression (which included the freedom to defraud,
pillage, and to destroy the land with impunity on the way to
gathering great fortunes), what better way to proceed than to
cloak the corruption within a religion? If a few men wanted to
establish an American empire and control the entire world, what
better vehicle to carry them to their goal than to place their
agenda within the context of a religion? Jim Jones proved religious
people would support even immoral political deeds if their leaders
found a way to frame those deeds as Gods Will.
The idea was brilliant. Its framers knew they could glorify greed,
hate, nationalism and even a Christian empire with ease.[21]

The religion the
canny thinkers founded follows the reverse of communism and secular
humanism, it poured political and economic ideology into a religion
and that combustible mixture produced Dominionism,
a new political faith that had the additional advantage of insulating
the cult from attacks on its political agenda by giving its practitioners
the covering to simply cry out, Youre attacking me
for my religious beliefs and thats religious persecution![22]

But how could a
leader get away with a religious fraud that barely hides its
destructive and false intent?

Jim Joness
history holds the answer. He not only proved the obvious fact
that people are blinded by their religious beliefs and will only
impute goodness, mercy, and religious motivations to their leader,
but Jim Jones proved the efficacy of the basic teaching of Machiavelli:
a leader must only appear to have the qualities of goodnesshe
need not actually possess those attributes.

In fact, Machiavelli
taught that it is dangerous for a leader to practice goodness.
Instead, he must pretend to be good and then do the opposite.
Machiavelli taught that a leader will succeed on appearances
alone. A good leader puts his finger to the wind and changes
course whenever it is expedient to do so. Machiavelli wrote this
revealing passage that could be applied not only to false religious
leaders but to a false President:

Alexander
VI did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothing else,
and found the occasion for it; no man was ever more able to give
assurances, or affirmed things with stronger oaths, and no man
observed them less; however, he always succeeded in his deceptions,
as he well knew this aspect of things.

Everybody
sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those
few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have
the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of
men, and especially of princes, from which there is no appeal,
the end justifies the means. (p. 93)

Chillingly Machiavelli
advises his readers:

Let a prince
therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the
means will always be judged honourable and praised by every one,
for the vulgar is always taken by appearances and the issue of
the event; and the world consists only of the vulgar, and the
few who are not vulgar are isolated when the many have a rallying
point in the prince. (p. 94)

Machiavelli also
wrote how to govern dominions that previous to being occupied
lived under their own laws. His words eerily reflect the Bush
Administrations decisions on how to rule Iraq:

When those
states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at liberty
under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The
first is to despoil them;[23]
the second is to go and live there in person; the third is to
allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them,
and creating within the country a government composed of a few
who will keep it friendly to you. Because this government, being
created by the prince, knows that it cannot exist without his
friendship and protection, and will do all it can to keep them.
What is more, a city used to liberty can be more easily held
by means of its citizens than in any other way, if you wish to
preserve it. (p. 46)

However Machiavelli
has second thoughts and follows with this caveat:

 .
[I]n truth there is no sure method of holding them except by
despoiling them. And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city
and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for
it can always find a motive for rebellion in the name of liberty
and of its ancient usages [24] (p. 46)

(The above quotes
are from The Prince in the original Oxford University
Press translation by Luigi Ricci, 1903; revised by E. R. P. Vincent,
1935)

Machiavellis
books, The Prince and The Discourses are not abstract
treatises. Christian Gauss, who wrote an important introduction
to the Oxford edition, called them by their rightful name: they
are in fact a concise manuala handbookof
those who would acquire or increase their political power.
Gauss tells us that a long line of kings and ministers and tyrants
studied Machiavelli, including Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.

How
Can Evil Deeds Be Reconciled With Christian Beliefs?

Its important
to understand that the founders of Dominionism are sitting on
the horns of a moral dilemma: How can a leader be both good and
evil at the same time? For if biblical moral proscriptions are
applicable to him, he will certainly suffer some form of censure.
And if proscriptions are applicable, the leader could not lie
to the citizenry with impunity or do evil so that good
could be achieved. The answer to the dilemma of how a Dominionist
leader could both do evil and still maintain his place of honor
in the Christian community lies in the acceptance and adoption
of the Calvinistic doctrine that James Hogg wrote about in The
Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner. (W.W.
Norton, N.Y. 1970.)

This novel, published
in 1824, is concerned with psychological aberration and as such,
anticipates the literature of the twentieth century. The protagonist
is a young man named Robert, who drenched in the religious bigotry
of Calvinism, concluded that he was predestined before the beginning
of the world to enter heaven, therefore no sin he committed would
be held to his account. This freed Robert to become an assassin
in the cause of Christ and His Church.

Fifty years ago
a variation on the concept was expressed disapprovingly as, Once
savedalways saved. In this view, salvation had nothing
to do with good works or a holy life. A drunk who
had a born again experience would be among Gods chosen
elect whether he stopped drinking or not. But the logical extension
of the reasoning is the idea that Christianity could have within
itself not ex-sinners but active sinners: as Christian murderers,
Christian pedophiles, Christian rapists, Christian thieves, Christian
arsonists, and every other kind of socio-pathological behavior
possible. As we have sadly witnessed of late the concept is broadly
accepted within the American churches.

But the dominionists needed an aberrant
extension of Calvinism; they believe as did Calvin and John Knox
that before the creation of the universe, all men were indeed
predestined to be either among Gods elect or were unregenerate
outcasts. But it is at this point dominionists introduced the
same perversion to Supralapsarianism, as James Hogg
utilized in his novel. They assert essentially that the man called
from before the foundation of the world to be one of the elect
of Gods people, can do no wrong. No wonder then observers
noted a definite religious swing in George W. Bush from Wesleyan
theology to Calvinism early in his administration. [25]

How comforting
the idea of a justified sinner is when one is utilizing
Machiavellian techniques to gain political control of a state.
Its more than comforting; it is a required doctrine for
Christians who believe they must use evil to bring
about good. It justifies lying, murder, fraud and all other criminal
acts without the fuss of having to deal with guilt feelings or
to feel remorse for the lives lost through executions, military
actions, or assassinations.

If this doctrine
seems too wayward to believe as it might have done had I not
heard a recent interview with a Pentecostal ministerrest
assured the twisted doctrine is horribly alive and thriving in
America today.

The
interview conducted by Brian Copeland a news talk show host for
KGO, San Francisco on September 5, 2003, was with the Reverend
Donald Spitz of Pensacola, Florida who is involved with a Pro
Life group in Virginia and with the Army of God. The occasion
was the execution of Paul Hill, another Pentecostal minister
who murdered a doctor and his body guard outside an abortion
clinic. Hill was caught and convicted of the crimes. Spitz admitted
that he was Paul Hills spiritual counselor. He said Hill
died with the conviction he had done the Lords work. Spitz
who approved of the murder said, Someone else is going
to handle the publishing of Paul Hills book On How to
Assassinate.

Spitz believed
that Hill was completely justified in murdering the physician
because, according to him, twenty-six babies lives
were saved by the killing. When Copeland pointed
out that the scheduled abortions for the morning of the murders
would have simply been postponed to another dayand that
the lives of the fetuses were only extended for a day or so,
Spitz refused to accept the argument.

Not surprisingly,
Spitz opposed the use of birth control methods. Copeland asked,
If a woman is raped should she be forced to carry the fetus
to term? Spitz said, Yes.

What if the
pregnancy will kill the mother? Spitz replied that under
no circumstances could the baby be killed. When Spitz
was asked, Why havent you gone out and killed an
abortionist? he replied calmly, God hasnt told
me to do the killing.

The
Neo-Conservative Connection with Dominionists and Machiavelli

I suspect that
most Americans have never heard of Machiavelli, nevertheless,
it should be no surprise to us that Machiavelli has been accepted,
praised, and followed by the Neo-Conservatives in the White House
and his precepts are blindly adopted by the so-called Christian
Dominionists. Kevin Phillips tells us in his book, American
Dynasty that Karl Rove, political strategist for President
George W. Bush, is a devotee of Machiavelli, just as Roves
predecessor, Lee Atwater had been for the elder Bush.[26] In fact, there has been an incredible
effort to dilute the immoral implications of Machiavellis
teachings. Todays best apologist for Machiavelli is one
of the most influential voices in Washington with direct connections
into the oval office.

Michael A. Ledeen
was a Senior Fellow with the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and a counselor to the National Security Council and
special counselor to former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig
in 1985. His relationship with Pat Robertson goes back at least
to the early 1980s.[27] Like Robertson, Ledeen was an advocate
for military intervention in Nicaragua and for assistance to
the Contras. (Ledeen was also involved in the Iran-Contra affair.)[28]

Today, in 2004,
Michael Ledeen is a fellow at the conservative think tank, the
American Enterprise Institute and according to William O. Beeman
of the Pacific News Service, Ledeen has become the driving
philosophical force behind the neoconservative movement and the
military actions it has spawned.[29]

Ledeen made a number
of appearances on the 700 Club show during the 1980s.
Always presented as a distinguished guest, Robertson interviewed
him on April 30, 1985 and asked him on this occasion: What
would you recommend if you were going to advise the President
[Ronald Reagan] as to foreign policy?

Ledeen responded:

The United
States has to make clear to the world and above all to its
own citizens, what our vital interests are. And then
we must make it clear to everyone that we are prepared to fight
and fight fiercely to defend those interests, so that people
will not cross the lines that are likely to kick off a trip wire.
(Emphasis added.)

If Ledeens
advice sounds ruthless and Machiavellianit may be because
it is Machiavellian. (By definition his statement presupposes
the existence of something or several things that are life
threatening to the nation by the use of the word vital.
Yet Ledeen asserts that which is life threatening must be made
manifest or defined. If an interest must be defined, then it
is not apparent; yet the nation will nevertheless ask its sons
and daughters to fight and die for something that is not apparent.
Therefore, whatever interests Ledeen wanted to be
defined, cannot have been vital interests, which are apparentso
in reality he advised the President to call discretionary
interests vitalwhich is a lie.)

Be aware that Ledeen
is in complete accord with Machiavellian thinking. And so is
Pat Robertson.[30]
Robertson agreed to virtually every nuance Ledeen presented.
In fact, its not clear which of the two first proposed
invading Syria, Iran and Iraq back in the 1980s,[31] a refrain that also echoed in
the reports of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
one of the major homes for neo-conservatives in 2000. Both Ledeen
and Robertson targeted the same nations that PNAC lists as Americas
greatest enemies in its paper, Rebuilding Americas
Defenses (published in September 2000.)[32]

In 1999, Ledeen
published his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why
Machiavellis Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today
as Five Centuries Ago. (Truman Talley Books, St. Martins
Griffin, N.Y. 1999.) Here is a sample of how Ledeen smoothes
rough edges and presents a modern Machiavelli:

In order
to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have
to enter into evil. This is the chilling insight
that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging.
It is why we are drawn to him still  (p. 91)

Again, Ledeen writes:

Just as
the quest for peace at any price invites war and, worse than
war, defeat and domination, so good acts sometimes advance the
triumph of evil, as there are circumstances when only doing evil
ensures the victory of a good cause. (p. 93)

Ledeen clearly
believes the end justifies the means, but not all
the time. He writes Lying is evil, but then contradictorily
argues that it produced

a
magnificent result, and is essential to the survival
of nations and to the success of great enterprises. (p.
95)

Ledeen adds this
tidbit:

Alls
fair in war . . . and in love. Practicing deceit to fulfill your
hearts desire might be not only legitimate, but delicious!
(p. 95)

William O. Beeman
tells us about Michael Ledeens influence. Writing for the
Pacific News Service he says:

Ledeens
ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald
Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz He basically believes that violence
in the service of the spread of democracy is Americas manifest
destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator
of the American occupation of Iraq.[33]

In fact, Ledeens
influence goes even further. The BBC, the Washington
Post and Jim Lobe writing for the Asia Times report
that Michael Ledeen is the only full-time international affairs
analyst consulted by Karl Rove.[34] Ledeen has regular conversations with Rove.
The Washington Post said, More than once, Ledeen
has seen his ideas faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric.[35]

Leo
Strauss the Father of Neo-Conservatism

Leo Strauss was
born in 1899 and died in 1973. He was a Jewish scholar who fled
Germany when Hitler gained power. He eventually found refuge
in the United States where he taught political science at the
University of Chicago. He is most famous for resuscitating Machiavelli
and introducing his principles as the guiding philosophy of the
neo-conservative movement. Strauss has been called the godfather
of Newt Gingrichs Contract with America. More
than any other man, Strauss breathed upon conservatism, inspiring
it to rise from its atrophied condition and its natural dislike
of change and to embrace an unbounded new political ideology
that rides on the back of a revolutionary steed, hailing even
radical change; hence the name Neo-Conservatives.

The father of neo-conservatism
had many spiritual children at the University of
Chicago, among them: Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, who received
their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. Harry V. Jaffa was a
student of Strauss and has an important connection to Dominionists
like Pat Robertson as we shall see below. However, Strausss
family of influence extended beyond his students to include faculty
members in universities, and the people his students taught.
Those prominent neo-conservatives who are most notable are: Justice
Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Irving Kristol and his son William
Kristol, Alan Keyes, William J. Bennett, J. Danforth Quayle,
Allan Bloom, John Podhoertz, John T. Agresto, John Ashcroft,
Newt Gingrich, Gary Bauer, Michael Ledeen and scores of others,
many of whom hold important positions in George W. Bushs
White House and Defense Department.

To understand the
Straussian infusion of power that transformed an all but dead
conservative realm, think of Nietzsches Overman come to
life. Or better yet, think of the philosophy most unlike Christianity:
Think of pure unmitigated evil. Strauss admits that Machiavelli
is an evil man. But according to Strauss, this admission is a
prerequisite to studying and reading Machiavelli: the acknowledgement
is the safety net that keeps the reader from being corrupted.
One is tempted to talk back to Strauss and point out an alternative:
the admission could be the subterfuge that keeps a man from being
ridiculed and rejected for espousing Machiavellian methods.

In one of the most
important books for our times, Shadia Drurys Leo Strauss
and the American Right, undertakes to explain the ideas behind
Strausss huge influence and following. Strausss reputation,
according to Drury, rests in large part on his view that a
real philosopher must communicate quietly, subtly, and secretly
to the few who are fit to receive his message. Strauss
claims secrecy is necessary to avoid persecution.[36]

In reading Strauss,
one sometimes encounters coded contradictory ideas. For example,
Strauss appears to respect Machiavelli becauseas
he points outin contrast to other evil men, Machiavelli
openly proclaimed opinions that others only secretly expressed
behind closed doors. But we have just noted that Strauss teaches
that secrecy is essential to the real philosopher. Strauss concluded,
some would say that Machiavelli was after all, a patriot of sorts
for he loved Italy more than he loved his own soul. Then Strauss
warns, but if you call him a patriot, you merely obscure
something truly evil.[37] So Strauss dances his way through the Machiavellian
field of evil, his steps choreographed with duplicity and its
opposite. The reader cannot let go.

In Strausss
view, Machiavelli sees that Christianity has led the world
into weakness, which can only be offset by returning the
world to the ancient practices of the past. (Implied is not a
return to the pagan past, but rather a return to the more virulent
world of the Old Testament). Strauss laments, Machiavelli
needed a detailed discussion revealing the harmony between
his political teaching and the teaching of the Bible.[38]These
statements of Strauss, by themselves, were sufficient to send
neo-conservative Christians to search for correlations between
Machiavellianism, radical conservatism and the scriptures.[39]

Strausss
teaching incorporated much of Machiavellis. Significantly,
his philosophy is unfriendly to democracyeven antagonistic.
At the same time Strauss upheld the necessity for a national
religion not because he favored religious practices, but because
religion in his view is necessary in order to control the population.
Since neo-conservatives influenced by Strauss are in control
of the Bush administration, I have prepared a brief list that
shows the radical unchristian basis of neo-conservatism. I am
indebted to Shadia Drurys book (Leo Strauss and the
American Right) and published interviews for the following:

First: Strauss
believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens
he ruled.

Secondly: Those
who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only
the right of the superior to rule the inferior.

Thirdly:
According to Drury, Religion is the glue that holds society
together.[40]
It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses.
Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.

Fourthly: Secular
society is the worst possible thing, because it leads
to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage
dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: You want a
crowd that you can manipulate like putty.[41]

Fifthly: Strauss
thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united
by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains
that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.
[42]

Sixthly: In
Strausss view, the trouble with liberal society is that
it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found
society on secular rational foundations.

Strausss
Student, Harry Jaffa on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson

For
four days in 1986, from July first through the fourth of July,
Pat Robertson interviewed neo-conservative Dr. Harry Jaffa, a
former student of Leo Strauss, on the 700 Club show. The
topic was the importance of the Declaration of Independence.
Joining with Jaffa was Robertsons
own man, Herb Titus, the Dean of CBNs School of Public
Policy. This series of interviews was one of the most important
philosophical moments in the development of the political agenda
and political philosophy of the Dominionists.

Robertson found
in Harry Jaffa, the champion he needed, whose reasoning would
influence how the Constitution should be interpreted by conservatives
and would provide a Christian view of the establishment
of the United States that excluded the secular social contract
view. Harry Jaffa would influence both Clarence Thomas (who would
be appointed to the Supreme Court by President George Bush senior
in 1991) and Antonin Scalia (who would be appointed to the Supreme
Court by President Ronald Reagan on September 26, 1986).

During the four
days of interviews Jaffa and Titus agreed that the Declaration
of Independence was the premier document and it superceded the
Constitution. Titus said, The Declaration is the charter
of the nation. It is what you might call the articles of incorporation,
whereas the Constitution is the bylaws. The Constitution is the
means by which to carry out the great purposes that are articulated
in the Declaration.

Robertson asked:
Lets assume that eighty percent of the people are
just totally immoral, they want to live lives of gross licentiousness
and they want to prey on one another, thats what they want
and they want a government to let them do it. How does that square
with the Declaration of Independence and its consent of the governed?

Titus said, Even
the people cant consent to give away that which God says
is unalienable.

Robertson then
asked, The principles enunciated in the Declaration of
Independence, how far have we gone from it and what can we do
to redress some of these problems?

Jaffa responded
cryptically:

Id
say that today, for example in the Attorney Generals [Edwin
Meeses] warfare with the liberals on the Supreme Court,
in his appeal to original intent, he appeals to the text
of the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison said together in 1825,
If you want to find the principles of the Constitution
of the United States, you go first to the Declaration of Independence.

First, Jaffa means
by the term original intent that the Constitution
must be interpreted according to what it meant when it was originally
adopted. It is a revolutionary and brilliant idea that will allow
the Dominionists to effectively repeal most of the judicial decisions
made in the last century. [43]

Secondly, if we
take Jaffa and the Dominionists at their word and go to the Declaration
of Independence, we can see just how radical the conservative
revolution and Dominionism are. The only portion that is ever
quoted publicly are these words:

We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed,

The quote stops
in the middle of the sentencethe part that is never quoted
is this:

That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem
most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Dominionism then,
takes its authority to overthrow the government of the United
States from our own Declaration of Independence. By the time
all Americans wake up to the Dominionists intent, it may
be too late.

Though Harry Jaffa
speaks with a high minded sense of political righteousness, Shadia
Drury exposes his Machiavellian side. Like Strauss, he clearly
believes that devious and illegal methods are justified when
those in power are convinced of the rightness of their ends.[44] Jaffa
and Robertson saw eye to eye on more than one topic: for instance,
Jaffa like his host Pat Robertson, found Oliver North to be a
hero (and by extension Michael Ledeen) when both North and Ledeen
went around the law to provide military aid to the contras.[45]

How
Dominionism Stealthily Swept Over America

Within a period
of twenty to thirty years beginning in the 1970s, Dominionism
spread like wild fire throughout the evangelical, Pentecostal
and fundamentalist religious communities in America. It was aided
and abetted by television and radio evangelists. More
than any other man, Pat Robertson mobilized the millions of politically
indifferent and socially despised Pentecostals and fundamentalists
in America and turned them into an angry potent army of political
conquerors.[46]

But it would be
a mistake to limit Dominionism to the Pentecostals and fundamentalists
alone: conservative Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have joined
and enlarged the swelling numbers.[47] Robertson, like other media
preachers, used every form of communication: television, radio,
books and audio tapes available for sale. One book stands out.
Originally published in 1982 and written with Bob Slosser, a
key Robertson loyalist, Pat Robertsons The Secret Kingdom
soared on the bestseller charts. It underwent four printings
during its first year. By 1984 Bantam published a mass paperback
in cooperation with Thomas Nelson, the original publisher. (Though
the book has since been revised, my quotes are from the original
version.)

However, it was
the Pentecostals and fundamentalists
who made up the core of Robertsons audience. To a people
who were largely uneducated and who often remained ignorant even
if they went through college because of their fear of becoming
tainted by the world and worldliness, Dominionism
came as a brilliant light that assuaged their deep sense of inferiority.
Pentecostals in particular could take comfort from the notion
that no longer would the world think of them as Holy Rollers
who danced in the Spirit and practiced glossolalia.
This time, they would be on topthey would be the head and
not the tailand the so-called elite, the educated of the
world, would be on the bottom.

A new world was
coming. To help the transition along, Pat Robertson, along with
other pastors, evangelists and churchmen, founded schools, universities
and colleges throughout the United States to train Christians
how to run for office, how to win, and how to manage the affairs
of government after they gained office. To get an idea of how
successful the plan was, Robertsons Regent University now
has a $100 million endowment. After watching the Dominionists
takeover the Republican Party and observing their ruthless methods,
it is indeed apparent that Machiavellian principles are the fuel
running their How to Manual.

Starting with a
class of only twelve in 1985, Robertson began his Journalism
Department at CBN University where 800 other graduate students
were earning Master degrees in a fully accredited institution.
Later Robertson changed the name of CBN University to Regent
Universitybased on Dominionisms teaching that
the national government of America and governments of the world
will be ruled by Dominionists, who will act as regents on an
interim basis, that is, until the true KingJesus Christwill
return to earth again and gratefully accept His Kingdom from
the hands of His faithful regents.

The
Dominionist Plan: Today Control the USA, Tomorrow the World

Significantly,
Dominionism is a form of Social Darwinism.[48] It inherently includes the religious
belief that wealth-power is a sign of Gods election. That
is, out of the masses of people and the multitude of nationswealth,
in and of itself, is thought to indicate Gods approval
on men and nations whereas poverty and sickness reflect Gods
disapproval. The roots of the idea come from a natural twist
of an Old Testament passage, which I discuss below. Essentially
there were two elements necessary to establish Dominionism among
Christians who previously believed helping the poor was a mandate
of Christianity.[49]

First, Old Testament
law had to be accepted as an essential part of a Christians
theology.

Secondly, the Christian
had to undergo a second conversion-like experience that went
beyond being born again and demanded not only a commitment
to reestablishing the Old Testament legal structure but required
the implementation of that law in the nations of the world
(including the U.S.) based upon a different understanding of
the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20).[50] Under this concept Dominionists
are to go into all the world to take dominion and make
disciples teaching the disciples to observe all
that Jesus commanded. All nations under Dominionists
teaching are to convert to biblical laws, which are ranked superior
to secular laws that were not God given or God directed and are
found wanting. The Christian therefore must be willing to overthrow
all laws that are secular.

In other words,
a measure of ones spirituality rested upon the individuals
willingness to accept the concept of taking dominion over not
only the people of America, but taking dominion over the people
of the entire world. From Dominionists actual words, the
taking of America is perceived as a violent act. Ben Kinchlow
who co-hosted CBNs 700 Club with Pat Robertson told
an audience, We need to grab the American dream
by the short hairs and snatch it back to where it was
originally designed to be.

As Robertson wrote
approvingly in his book, The Secret Kingdom, the kingdom
of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by
force. He explained, Zealous men force their way
in. Thats what it means. (Page 82.)

What Dominion Means

There were an estimated
110,000 Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches in America in
the 1980s. Robertson taught themthrough his vast television
network and through his booksthat the role of the Christian
is to rule over the wicked. Dominionisms purpose is to
create theocrats (a Christian class of rulers). But in order
to successfully place only certain Christians in positions of
power, Dominionism divides Christian believers into classes based
upon political ideology and certain hot point issues such
as the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, freedom
to decide on medical procedures with ones own physician, freedom
of the press and freedom of speech, freedom of the arts, and
certain rights like the right to a fair trial and protection
from governmental intrusion into the privacy of marriage and
adult associations.

The believers who
are destined to rule are called the elect, and are
separated from those believers who do not and will not accept
the predestined superiority of the chosen ruling class. A Christian
who raises his voice against the elect could be labeled
a false prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and therefore,
according to the Deuteronomic law shall be put to death.

Placing his own
words in the mouth of God, Robertson wrote in The Secret Kingdom:

It is clear
that God is saying, I gave man dominion over the earth,
but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will
in My name exercise dominion over the earth and will subdue Satan,
the unruly, and the rebellious. Take back My world
from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.
(p. 201.)

On his 700 Club
television show (5-1-86) Robertson said:

Gods
plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion What
is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people
to reign and rule with Him but Hes waiting for us
to extend His dominion And the Lord says, Im
going to let you redeem society. Therell be a reformation .We
are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme
Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. Were not
gonna stand for it. We are going to say, we want freedom
in this country, and we want power 

Charles
Colson, the former Special Counsel to Richard Nixon, who
was called Nixons Hatchet Man, pled guilty
to charges in the Daniel Ellsberg case during the Watergate Scandal.
He served a prison sentence, and started a prison ministry afterward.
Pat Robertson has called him the most brilliant political
strategist in the world. Over the years, Colson made many
appearances on the 700 Club. On one occasion, he laid
out the battle lines:

It always
has been a conflict between the kingdoms: the kingdom of God
and the kingdom of man. When you really look at what Jesus is
saying, He is saying the time is fulfilled, repent and believe,
the kingdom is at hand. And He is calling for the kingdom of
God to rule over the affairs of man. And so inevitably theres
going to be a conflict. (The 700 Club 5-21-86)

Robertson said
on his program the 700 Club (5-13-86):

Weve
sat idly by long enough and said, Well religion and politics
dont mix. Dont you believe it. If we dont
have moral people in government then the only other people that
can be in government are immoral. Thats the only way it
goes. Either you have moral people in there or you have immoral
people.

On another show
(5-7-86) he revealed a partial list of changes the Dominionists
planned for America:

We can change
the government, we can change the court systems, we can change
the poverty problem, we can change education We can make
a difference.

Who Rules? And Who Are to Be the Ruled?

In an earlier section,
I discussed the principle held by both Machiavelli and Leo Strauss
that religion is necessary as a tool for a leader to control
the masses. If conformitynot dissent is required, then
religion is the power tool of choice, for it will insure a controlled
populace. Were about to examine its uses, its ingenious
gifts and its powers, in this and the following sections. Be
aware that Dominionism is in fact, a brilliantly executed road
that leads to total power.

In his book, which
tended to be more formal and less expansive, Pat Robertson began
the listing of those Americans not fit for public office:

Obviously
the drunk, the drug addict, the lustful, the slothful do not
have the discipline to rule the earth and to correct its evils.
(p. 82)

If we remain
unrighteous, the Bible says, we will miss the kingdom.
(p.83)

If Secular
Humanists are the greatest threat to Christianity the world has
ever known, as theologian Francis Schaeffer claimed, then
who are the Humanists? According to Dominionists, humanists are
the folks who allow or encourage licentious behavior in
America. They are the undisciplined revelers.

Put all the enemies
of the Dominionists together, boil them down to liquid and bake
them into the one single most highly derided and contaminated
individual known to man, and you will have before you an image
of the quintessential liberalone of those folks
who wants to give liberally to the poor and needywho desires
the welfare and happiness of all Americanswho insists on
safety regulations for your protection and who desires the preservation
of your valuesthose damnable people are the folks that
must be reduced to powerlessnessor worse: extinction.

Dominionists determine
who is among Gods electnot solely by a religious
experience such as being born again, but by a political determination
of whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a liberal or a
conservative or simply a person who questions the deeds of Dominionist
political figures. The politics of exclusion, including bigotry,
is in fact wide spread throughout the United States.

Take, for instance,
Sean Hannitys remarks to Time Magazine, You
can play golf with liberals, be neighbors with them, go out to
dinner. I just dont want them in power.[51] Or take Ann Coulters assertions:
Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position
on the side of treason. Or, Whenever the nation is
under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the
enemy. (It turns out that every single liberal
in the country is a member of the Democratic Party and therefore
is a traitor.)[52]

The Machiavellian
nature of the Dominionist cult explains why Bill Clinton who
is a Christian believer was attacked so viciously for his sexual
folly but Newt Gingrich, Bill Livingston, Henry Hyde, Strom Thurmond
and scores of other Republicans escaped the punishment of public
ridicule, verbal abuse, and humiliation for the same sexual
peccadilloes. (It appears only Democratic liberals
must be held to the fire of biblical standards and biblical punishments
because as we all know, they are unregenerate from the
beginning of time.)

Robertsons
book acknowledges that his followers, the Christian
army raised up for political purposes are the elect chosen to
rule. Robertsons transcribed television interviews and
dialogs give shocking evidence to the legitimization of greed,
hatred, violence and cruelty by members of the various fundamentalist
branches of the American clergy and by elected officials of the
Republican Party, which can be cited as evidence that Dominionism
is not a Christian religionthat above everything else,
Dominionism is synonymous with Machiavellianism: the ends justify
the means. Under Dominionism, true Christianity is a target to
destroy, not a goal to achieve.

Who Lives and Who Dies? How Justice Scalia
Would Expand the Death Penalty

In one of those
peculiar moments when a host on television seems to have a disconnect
with his guest, I realized that Pat Robertson was using code
with Herb Titus, his guest on the show on May 27,
1985. Titus was the Dean of CBN Universitys
School of Public Policy and was a known Christian Reconstructionist
(Dominionist) who had written position papers arguing that government
has exceeded its authority by requiring individuals such as doctors,
lawyers, and teachers to be licensed by the state. Robertson,
himself, revealed what the School of Public Policy was teaching
on a later show (July 5, 1985). What are we going to teach
them? Well teach them the foundation of our government.
Were going to teach them how to win elections.

This exchange with
Titus occurred on May 27, 1985:

Robertson:
We have with us today Constitutional authority,
Herb Titus. Herb . . . . How about the biblical concept of war?
You know there are many people who dont think we should
ever fight wars and yet were talking about brave men who
died for freedom. (Emphasis added)

Titus: Well
I believe the scripture is very clear that if you are attacked
by evil whether within the country or outside the country, that
its the duty of the civil authorities to defend the nation
and the people of the nation from evil whether it comes from
an aggressor outside or an aggressor inside. We can see that
in Romans 13 for example.

Curious about the
meaning of what was being said, particularly since Robertson
had asked a question about war, and Titus answer included
war against ones own population, I looked up Romans 13.
I had always read this passage to be St. Pauls concept
of a good government providing beneficial services to the governed
and I restricted its meaning to only a lawfully constituted government
that rules justly.

But read Romans
13 in the light of Machiavellis and Leo Strausss
discourses on religion and its uses by a political leader, and
one glimpses the danger that Dominionism represents to the American
people and to the American way of life. For it can be read to
mean that any lawful government is ordained by God to
execute retribution and punishment upon those who challenge (resist
or rebel against) unjust policies of a government. When read
this way, it takes on a new and sinister meaning. Or, it can
be read to mean that once a new government of the United
States of America has been established under biblical lawthen
no citizen will have the right to resist it or rebel against
its edicts. In other words, the Declaration of Independence will
no longer be applicable to the regency established by the Dominionists.
This is how Romans 13 reads in the New English Version:

Every
person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority
but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted
by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting
a divine institution, and those who so resist have themselves
to thank for the punishment they will receive. For government,
a terror to crime, has no terrors for good behaviour. You wish
to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right
and you will have their approval, for they are Gods agents
working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will
have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold
the power of the sword, for they are Gods agents of punishment,
for retribution on the offender. That is why you are obliged
to submit. It is an obligation imposed not merely by fear of
retribution but by conscience. That is also why you pay taxes.
The authorities are in Gods service and to these duties
they devote their energies.

This section, if
taken literally as fundamentalists are apt to do, appears to
prohibit any kind of resistance against the policies of a government,
including peaceful protests, petitions, and writings. Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia appears to endorse that position,
for he quoted this same Romans 13 passage in his article, Gods
Justice and Ours, to prove that Christian doctrine states
governmenthowever you want to limit that conceptderives
its moral authority from God.[53] Government is not only the minister
of God but it has the authority to execute Gods
wrath.

The
power of the sword is surely the power to kill or maim and certainly
the power to intimidate. Scalia believes the power of the sword
in this passage is unmistakably a reference to the
death penalty.

At this point,
Scalia demonstrates the absolute brilliance of the judicial rule
created by neo-conservatives that requires a judge to determine
the original intent of the writers of the Constitution.
As Scalia himself describes it, The Constitution that I
interpret and apply is not living but dead It means today
not what current society thinks it ought to mean, but what
it meant when it was adopted.[54] Once the original thinking is
determined, the judge can enforce the Constitution only as a
document that is bound by the time zone in which a particular
passage was written.

When I first read
articles by authors who were exposing the Dominionists
intention to extend the death penalty to cover crimes
like adultery, rebelliousness, homosexuality, witchcraft or effeminateness,
I found the death penalty extension goal to be laughable. It
couldnt be done in America.

I was wrong. I
now realize that we are very close to seeing the Dominionists
achieve their goal. All they need to do is to appoint a majority
of judges who will adhere to the dead Constitution
construction rule of Scalia (or what Harry Jaffa called the
original intent construction rule). At the point when the
Dominionists control the judiciarythat judiciary
can roll back Americas body of legal jurisprudence to a
century or more ago as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams pointed
out.[55]

Scalia spilled
the beans in his article, Gods Justice and Ours
when he explained how he would determine whether the death penalty
is constitutional or not. His reasoning goes like this: since
the death penalty was clearly permitted when the Eighth
Amendment [which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments]
was adopted, and at that time the death penalty was applied
for all feloniesincluding, for example, the felony of horse-thieving,
so it is clearly permitted today.[56] Justice Scalia left no doubt
that if the crime of horse stealing carried a death penalty today
in the United Stateshe would find that law constitutional.

All a willing Dominionist
Republican controlled congress need do to extend the death penalty
to those people who practice witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality,
heresy, etcetera, is to find those particular death penalty laws
existing as of November 3, 1791, and re-instate them. No revolution
is required. Thats why the battle over Bushs judicial
appointments is so crucial to the future of the America we know
and love. And thats why the clock is running out on freedom
loving Americans.

Scalia
himself appears to be a Dominionist, for he believes that Romans
13 represents the correct view that government authority
is derived from God and not from the people; he asserts his view
was the consensus of Western thought until recent times. Like
Pat Robertson, he laments that the biblical perspective was upset
by the emergence of democracy.[57] Taking his cue from Leo Strauss,
Scalia argued, a democratic government, being seen as nothing
more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has
no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals...
Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems: It can foster civil disobedience.[58]

Dominionisms
Theocratic Views

What would a reconstructed
America look like under the Dominionists? K.L. Gentry,
a Dominionist himself, suggests the following elements
of a theonomic approach to civic order, which I strongly
suggest should be compared to the Texas GOP platform of 2002,
which reveals that we are not just talking about imaginary ideas
but some things are already proposed on Republican agendas.[60] Dominionisms
concept of government according to Gentry is as follows:

4. It calls for the abolishing
of the prison system and establishing a system of just restitution.
...

5. A theonomic approach also
forbids the release, pardoning, and paroling of murderers by
requiring their execution. ...

6. It forbids industrial pollution
that destroys the value of property. ...

7. It punishes malicious, frivolous
malpractice suits. ...

8. It forbids abortion rights.
... Abortion is not only a sin, but a crime, and, indeed, a capital
crime.[61]

The fourth item
in Gentrys list, abolishing of the prison system
and establishing a system of just restitution has been
worked on extensively by Dominionist Gary North, who holds a
doctorate degree in history. North
has written volumes of books, essays and articles, (many of which
falsely predicted that the year 2000 computer problem would bring
down modern civilization.) He is most famous among Dominionists
for reconciling economic theory with Old Testament passages.

Gary North describes
the just restitution system of the bible, which happens
to reinstitute slavery, like this:

At the other
end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught
and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives
payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of
labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way
out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and
presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.[62]

The
Immorality of the Medicare and Medicaid Programs

If the blithe acceptance
of slavery isnt shocking enough, here is one of the coldest
attitudes I ever heard expressed in an interview on American
television. I cant help reading it in light of the coercive
bullying tactics resorted to by Dominionist leaders in the House
of Representatives to get the necessary votes to pass the controversial
new Medicare Prescription Drug law.[63] The following interview reveals
the deep seated hatred Dominionists have against governmental
medical assistance to the elderly. The interview was conducted
on August 1, 1985 with Dr. Walter Williams, professor of economics
at George Mason University and author of thirty-five books. Danuta
Soderman was a co-host on Pat Robertsons 700 Club. She
began the interview with a question about Medicare and Medicaid
fraud, suggesting it cost possibly millions and billions
of dollars:

Williams:
Well, I think that the abuse and fraud in and of itself
is a relatively minor problem. That is, the bigger problem is
the whole concept of funding somebodys medical care by
a third party. And I might also mention here, that is, I saw
in the audience many older and senior citizens. Now whose responsibility
is it to take care of those people? I think it lies with their
children and it also lies with themselves. That is, I think Christians
should recognize that charity is good. I mean charity, when you
reach into your pocket to help your fellow man for medical care
or for food or to give them housing. But what the government
is doing in order to help these older citizens is not charity
at all. It is theft. That is, the government is using power to
confiscate property that belongs to one American and give, or
confiscate their money, and provide services for another set
of Americans to whom it does not belong. That is the moral question
that Christians should face with not only Medicare, Medicaid.
But many other programs as well .Well, people should have
insurance. But I would say if our fellow man is found in need,
does not have enough, well thats a role for the church,
thats a role for the family, thats a role for private
institutions to take care of these things.

Danuta Soderman:
I thought it was interesting you talked about Medicare
and Medicaid as not being a moral issue. A lot of people would
think that to want to eliminate the program is rather uncompassionatethat
there is something immoral about taking away something that people
are relying so heavily upon, but you said that there is no moral
issue here.

Williams:
I think the moral issue runs the other way. That is, we
have to ask ourselves, What is the moral basis of confiscating
the property of one American and giving it to another American
to whom it does not belong for whatever reason? That is,
I think we Americans have to ask ourselves is there something
that can justify a legalized theft? And I think that even if
the person is starving in the street that act, in and of itself,
doesnt justify my taking money from somebody else.

How
to Destroy the Social Security Program

On
August 14, 1985, Pat Robertson unveiled his ingenious program
on how to get rid of Social Security. The plan amazingly resembles
sections of the Bush Administrations Medicare Prescription
Drug bill passed in December of 2003. Robertson, however, outlined
what to do twenty years ago as follows:

1. We
should say to all the elderly, Youre going to be
taken care of. The governments going to pay you. Dont
worry about it. [Youll] get your Social Security like youre
expecting, cause youre counting on it.

2. There
should be a gradual moving [up] of [the retirement] age to reflect
the fact that were healthier and we live longer and people
should have dignity and be allowed to work a little bit longer.

3. The last
thing we should do is to begin to let the younger workers slowly
but surely go into private programs where the money is tax sheltered
and over the years build up their own money and that would in
turn, through the intermediary organizations, banks, insurance
companies, would invest in American industry. They would buy
plants and equipment, put people to work and it would help a
tremendous boom. Imagine $100 billion dollars a year flowing
into American industry. It would be marvelous.

Wealth
is a Sign of Gods Favor, Poverty is a Sign of Gods
Disfavor

How did the Dominionists
get so far from the Lords edict to help the poor, the sick,
and the elderly? Using the text of Deuteronomy 28, which is a
list of Gods blessings and curses, Robertson and other
Dominionists believe that the chapter reveals Gods covenanted
economic law. God only bestows material wealth or blessings
upon those who are among his elect and he does so because these
are the individuals and nations who obey his commandments and
laws. So what about the poor? Dominionist Gary North explains
it this way:

God is sovereign
over the poor. He raises them upnot all of them, but some
of them. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth
low, and lifteth up.[64]

I grant that the
verse cited leaves government assistance out of the picture.
North claims, the blessings and sanctions of Deuteronomy 28 are
historical. He says, They are predictable. Covenantal rebellion
by a society will lead to Gods imposition of these sanctions.[65] North
then ties the package up neatly: The blessings and cursings
of God under the Mosaic Covenant were sure. They were not disconnected
from Gods law. There was a bedrock objectivity that united
covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers.[66]

To understand what
North is talking about, we have to read a portion of the text
of Deuteronomy 28:

The Lord
shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath
sworn unto thee and the Lord shall make thee the head and
not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not
be beneath 

A conclusion drawn
by the scripture itself is that a nation who follows the commandments
or laws of God will be high above all nations of the earth and
all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the
name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee. On
the other hand, the Dominionists believe those who are poor,
sick, and weak are so situated because Gods wrath has been
visited upon themthey are the wicked of this
earth and they deserve the wrath of God because their behavior
is bringing the entire nation under condemnation.

The litany of the
curses of God on those who do not keep his laws and commandments
are among the most horrendous descriptions of torture in literature.
Here is a sample from Deuteronomy 28:

The Lord
shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies thy
carcass shall be food unto all fowls of the air The Lord
will smite thee with [boils] and with tumors, and
with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
The Lord shall smite thee with madness and blindness and astonishment
of heart [fear]; thou shalt grope at noonday; thou shalt not
prosper in thy ways; and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled
evermore thou shalt betroth a wife and another man shall
lie with her; thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell
therein, and thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou
shalt not eat thereof; thine ass shall be violently taken away
from before thy face and shall not be restored to thee; thy sheep
shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to
rescue them. Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another
people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for
them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.
The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a nation whom
thou knowest not eat up, and thou shalt be only oppressed and
crushed always 

Gary North explained:
The point of Deuteronomy 28 is this: the way to wealth,
both individual and corporate, is through systematic adherence
to Gods Bible-revealed law.[67]

Hence the idea
that should a nation minister to the poor or attempt to lift
the poor out of poverty or save people from poverty and ill health,
that nation is contravening the will of Almighty God and such
legislation is contrary to the laws of God. It is only one step
further to say that if this is Gods attitude toward the
poor, it is morally wrong to help them. So its easy to
see how Social Security and Medicare are viewed by Dominionists
as evil programs that rob money from some citizens
to enrich others.

Theres one
other little trap for the unwary Dominionist; when a government
is seen to be the enforcer of the Deuteronomic laws, its
easy to take the next step and say that it is the duty of the
Christian Dominionist government to subdue the wicked
of the world, especially the vast American middle class, because
its collective licentious life style is bringing the nation down
as a whole; therefore the government must minister the
wrath of God against the citizens of America as punishment
for rebelliousness. That the entire scheme is an
unending circular argument, escapes the notice of the rank and
file sitting in the pews.

In their new role
as ministers of Gods wrath against this nation, Dominionist
political strategists are aware they must not be seen as being
cruel and hateful. So at first, until the population is completely
subdued and dominated by the elect, Dominionists are forced to
devise laws that will create the political, social, and medical
environment that will ultimately ensure that the wicked are punishedbut
it will appearat first blush to be a gift. The truth, of
course, according to Machiavellian/Straussian dictates, must
be hidden from the population; not just once or twice, but over
and over again.

In
the end, Dominionism should be viewed as a backboard that bounces
the New Deal and FDRs social safety net programs, social
security (as well as Medicare) into its political opposite: laissez-faire
economics (the motto of 18th century French economists who
protested excessive government regulation of industry.) Laissez-faire
is a doctrine opposing governmental interference (as by regulation
or subsidy) in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary
for the maintenance of peace and property rights. Dominionism
opposes the licensing and regulating power of the government.

One last comment
on Pat Robertson. On November 3, 1986, the 700 Club ran
a piece on the use of computers in counting votes. Robertson
ended his Perspective by saying there should be some kind
of control on computer voting to assure an honest count. How
prescient this man is! And how worrisome his prescience is.

Who
Is on the Side of Freedom? Let Him Speak Now!

There is an infection,
a religious and political pathology that has corrupted our churches.
Those we trusted the most have embraced evil. That knowledge
is almost more than we can bear. Who among us will stand in the
gap and make up the hedge to save our nation?

When we look for
helpfor the wealthy leaders with the means to help rescue
America, we find they have all defected to the Dominionists.
They do not realize that if the middle class of America is wiped
outthere will be no one to buy their cars, their computers
or their products. Only one or two brave souls like George Soros
have made massive contributions to combat the think tanks and
the organized political machine of the Dominionists. The corporate
press lies sleeping, not realizing they will be allowed to report
only what they are instructed to report.

Freedom is under
siege. There is only one free major political party still left
in America. I know the Democrats look chaotic, unfocused and
generally unsmooth and thank God, unprogramed. Make no mistake,
these plain ordinary citizens are holding the candles that together
form the great torch of liberty. For all their faults, they love
America and they love freedom and they love the Bill of Rights.
Americas independents, its true Conservatives, its sensible
Republicans, and its Libertarians must join hands together with
the homely Democrats and take back America for all Americans.

The livelihood
of the working people of America is at stake. The Dominionists
have lost more American jobs in the last three years than since
the days of Herbert Hoover. And now they want to eliminate the
minimum wage laws too. Americas unions have helped to create
a better life for millions of workers. The Dominionists want
to break all unions apart (especially the teachers union).
As Americans, we love our schools and are proud of our educational
system. The Dominionists want to destroy all public education
in America and force Americans to be educated in their religious
schools. Americans love our culture and the arts. The Dominionists
want to destroy that culture.

The election of
2004 is not just another election. It is the battle of the century.
It is the gravest political war since the Civil War, which if
lost, spells the end of Independence Day and every right in the
Bill of Rights that we have fought so hard to preserve. Is there
an American, regardless of his or her party, who would not fight
for our Democracy? Its in jeopardy now. Our friends and
cousins in Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand and scores
of other nations have seen our jeopardy and have been crying
out for months and days and years to wake up America!

Let me see your
face and look into your eyes. Let me hear you say, There
is no difference between the two parties. May God help
us and grant us discernment when we vote.

Notes to The Despoiling of
America

(By clicking on the endnote number,
you will be returned to the referenced text)

[4] Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli,
University of Chicago Press, 1978, at page 9. The actual quote
is:  [O]ne ought not to say to someone whom one wants
to kill, Give me your gun, I want to kill you with it,
but merely, Give me your gun, for once you have the
gun in your hand, you can satisfy your desire.

[5] Osha Gray Davidson, Dirty Secrets,
Mother Jones, September/October 2003 at page 53. The
Bush administration has been gutting key sections of the Clean
Water and Clean Air acts, laws that have traditionally had bipartisan
support and have done more to protect the health of Americans
than any other environmental legislation. The subtitle
reads: No president has gone after the nations environmental
laws with the same fury as George W. Bush and none has been so
adept at staying under the radar.

[6] Alan Sager, Ph.D. and Deborah Socolar, M.P.H.
61 Percent of Medicares New Prescription Drug Subsidy
Is Windfall Profit to Drug Makers, Health Reform Program,
Boston University School of Public Health. http://www.healthreformprogram.org
You may read the report in a PDF file by clicking
here:

[7] See Pat Robertsons prescription on how
to eliminate Social Security by clicking
here.

[9] If my words appear extreme, consider that in
January of 2004, Walter Cronkite broke a lifetime rule, saying,
I must speak out. Mr. Cronkite continued, I
am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of
people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our nations
political leaders.

Former Governor of Delaware, Russ Peterson
in his new book, Patriots, Stand Up!, wrote, Our
cherished American way of life is under attack by the far right-wing
Republicans who are now running the White House, the Senate and
the House of Representatives. This is the product of a conspiracy
that has been growing over the past few decades through the use
of evil tactics and strategies, lies and deceptions to transform
America.

Deception is now the hallmark
of the Bush administration. Read of the frightening chicanery
in furthering an imperial strategy, nurturing the military-industrial
complex, waging war on the environment, plunging the nation into
debt, demeaning the needy, antagonizing the world and using terrorism
to frighten and exploit.

The author calls on patriots to apply
the principles of democracy now to retake America from a conservative
elite that controls the country.

The authors background: Russ
Peterson, scientist, citizen activist, former executive with
the DuPont Co., Republican Governor of Delaware, assistant to
Republican Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, head of the U.S.
Council on Environmental Quality under Presidents Nixon and Ford,
head of the Office of Technology Assessment, reporting to six
Republican and six Democratic members of Congress, president
of the National Audubon Society, internationally acclaimed environmental
leader, United Nations goodwill ambassador, and faculty member
at Dartmouth College, Carleton College and the University of
Wisconsin Madison. His numerous national and international awards
include 15 honorary doctorates. In 1996 he became a Democrat.
http://www.governorpeterson.org/

[11] Gary North, Ph.D., the President
of the Institute for Christian Economics (ICE) and is also the
son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism,
advises his followers not to give out his literature to everyonejust
to interested people. Let word of mouth tell the story.
You need not become very visible if you choose not to.
From Replacing Evil With Goodhttp://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/html/8.htm
on page 9 of 11. For a complete understanding of how good and
evil are inverted and the "conspiriators" become us--see
this entire collection titled: "Conspiracy: A Biblical View"
by Gary North at http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/index.html
Click on each section of the Table of Contents at the site.
This web site can be reached only by entering from the root directory.

[13] Ben Kinchlow, co-host of
the 700 Club with Pat Robertson, was made Vice President
of CBN in charge of CBNs charities program Operation
Blessing. On March 27, 1985, while criticizing farmers
for wanting a government bailout he said: Whats wrong
in this country is that so many people have substituted the government
for God. Instead of looking to God to supply their needs, theyre
looking to government. Railing at financially stressed
people was very common on the show.

[14] Tim LaHaye predicted on Pat
Robertsons 700 Club show on September 25, 1985 that
110,000 evangelical, fundamentalist, and Pentecostal churches
could sponsor one person per church to run for office and win,
that in a decade they would hold every office in the U.S.
At the time, he said there were only 97,000 public offices in
the U.S. so we would have more Christians in office than
there are positions. By 1994, for the first time in forty
years, Republicans regained control of Congress. Similarly Ralph
Reed predicted that by the year 2,000 they would control Congress.
Gary North wrote in 1985: I propose a program. Some variant
of this program must be adopted if we are to have any meaningful
hope in recapturing the machinery of civil government, the media,
and the educational institutions. It will be done. It has already
begun. How long it will take is problematical; I think we will
begin to see major victories before the year 2005. http://reformed-theology.org/ice/books/conspiracy/html/8.htm
at page 5 of 11 pages.

[15] Francis Schaeffer originally
appeared on the 700 Club with Pat Robertson in 1982. The
series of interviews with Schaeffer were repeated on the show
in the week of July 7, 1986 as Robertson presented the legal
and biblical foundations for Christian political action. Francis
Schaeffer, however, died between the first and second airing.
The Schaeffer interviews were tape recorded and transcribed,
my quotes are from my transcript. The accuracy of my transcript
can be compared to the video tapes of the shows. At the time,
People for the American Way was recording the shows and
establishing a Pat Robertson 700 Club library for future
reference.

[16] All 700 Club quotes
in this article were recorded and transcribed by the author and
her assistant unless otherwise indicated.

[17] Although neither Robertson
nor Schaeffer used the words Dominionism or dominion
in this interview series they used the word dominant
when asking which culture was dominant in the United States:
the Christian culture or the humanistic culture. They asserted
the humanistic culture was the dominant force in America and
Christians had to regain dominance.

[18] The most successful ministers
knew the psychological importance of creating enemies
that were attacking the church. Jerry Falwell maintains the rule:
To be successful, keep a good fight going all the time.

[19] Psychiatrist Scott Peck has
written about the phenomena groups resort to almost universally
in his book, The People of the Lie, There are profound
forces at work within a group to keep its individual members
together and in line...Probably the most powerful of these group
cohesive forces is narcissism group pride .A less benign
but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might
be called enemy creation, or hatred of the out-group.

[21] In short, they needed a religion
of their own to justify evil acts and to counter the political
acceptance by many Christians who were attracted to the communal
and communistic principles of the early church (Acts
2:42-47), where the early Christians sold all their possessions,
gave them to the needy, and held all things [in] common.
Such Christian ideas were a direct threat to capitalisms
future robber barons. How could great fortunes be amassed if
one had to give it all away to the poor and follow Jesus? (Matthew
19:16-30.)

[22] Pat Robertson is particularly
adept at changing the issue from questioning an aggressively
religious political agenda into an attack on religion.
The Constitution prohibits a religious test for office in America
(Article 6). However, a battle over the nomination of Herb Ellingwood
in 1985 to the position of Assistant Attorney General for Legal
Policy caused a fire storm. (That office screens candidates for
the federal judiciary.) During the same period dominionists like
Ellingwood and Tim LaHaye were advocating that twenty-five percent
of all government positions should be handed to Christian fundamentalists
(dominionists) since they made up twenty-five percent of the
nations population. Pat Schroeder, former Democratic congresswoman
from Colorado and chairman of the Civil Service Committee strongly
opposed the view as a religious quota system and a violation
of Article VI of the Constitution. She said the questions that
were asked of judicial candidates, apparently prepared by Ellingwood,
amounted to a religious test for office. She spoke on the Phil
Donahue show on (September 6, 1985):

If you look at some
of the questions that are being asked by some of the senators
of judges, they dont have to do with their background,
their training, whether or not they understand the law, they
have to do with personal beliefs. Thats not where we have
been in the past, and thats a very dangerous turn 

During the same period of
time (August-September) Pat Robertson easily turned the legitimate
questioning of Herb Ellingwoods agenda into an attack on
Christianity by framing it this way on his 700 Club Show
on August 9, 1985:

Can an evangelical
Christian hold high office in the United States of America? Now
that is the question. Or are evangelical Christians going to
be discriminated against? And indeed will there be a religious
test for public office which disqualifies anybody who speaks
to a religious group? . . . .Herb Ellingwood is Chairman right
now of the Merit Protection Review Board and he has done a superb
job. He was the former legal counsel to President Reagan in California
and has worked closely with Ed Meese for years. Hes been
a very distinguished attorney. It just seems like this campaign
of assassination that goes on against good men like that should
be brought to a stop. . .And if you feel that Christians ought
to be allowed to serve in positions of responsibility in the
government and you dont think that Christians should
be discriminated against heres the number of the White
House: 202 446-7639  (700 Club 8-9-85)

[23] One cannot help comparing
this passage with the fact that 27,000 bombs were dropped on
Iraq in the 2003 air war and in a demonstration of cold indifference,
the Bush administration ignored the advice of prominent archeologists
to protect Iraqs museums, which contained the greatest
collection of ancient relics, art, and ancient treasures in the
world, and in so doing, allowed the lootingthe despoilingof
that nations treasures.

[24]Again, because we will learn
in this article that Machiavelli is a handbook in the Bush administration,
one must ask if the George W. Bush administration perceives despoiling
as a plan of action to control the American populace.
The question must be asked.

[25] See Kevin Phillips, author
of American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics
of Deceit in the House of Bush. Viking Press, 2004, at page
239-240.

[28] Ledeen tried to arrange the
sale of arms to Iran in order to divert the profits to the Contra
militants who were fighting the Nicaraguan governments
Sandinistas. However, Congress had voted to cut off U.S. aid
to the Contras and therefore any such transaction was illegal.

[30] Gerard Thomas Straub worked
at CBS for eight years before joining the 700 Club as
executive producer. After leaving CBNs employment, he went
to work for ABCs General Hospital as associate
producer. His 1986 book, Salvation for Sale, (Prometheus
Books, N.Y.) offers insights to how Pat Robertson conducted business
off camera from the perspective of an insider. The dichotomy
between his public friendly pastoral role and his
actual business conduct is stark evidence that he understood
Machiavellis rule that only appearance counts. Straub wrote:
In reality Pat is a pompous pope of the video Vatican of
Christian broadcasting, and he rules his empire with absolute
authority. He does not tolerate debate, discussions, or dissent His
television followers never get to see the tough-minded, hard-driving
cut-throat leader. In addition, over the years, Pat Robertson
revealed his Machiavellian political philosophy repeatedly and
openly on his show in discussions of how to handle foreign policy
and in his ruthless approach to the poor and needy of America.

[31] On June 19, 1985: Danuta
Soderman,the second member of Pat Robertsons daily
team, asked Pat Robertson how the United States should deal with
middle-east terrorist groups: Speaking about being decisive
in dealing with terrorists groups, yesterday you offered
some opinion on how Iran should be one of the places we should
target our energies on, any other thoughts on this?

Robertson: Just like
the last guest in that clip our news department did, he said
its pretty much undeclared war. Khomeini has declared war
against the United States. He has told people that if they die
against the infidel, they go to heaven. The Islamic Jihad is
controlled out of Iran, and the other factor of course is Syria,
which is giving some sanctuary to all of these people. Syria
controls the Becca Valley now practically all of it, since
Israel withdrew its forces. So up in the Becca Valley the Shiite
Muslims from Iran are forcing the Lebanese women to wear veils
and practice the various extreme views of the Islamic faith in
the Shiite traditions. Weve got to go after the source.
If you want to go after a snake you dont cut inches
off his tail.

Robertson also focused on
the Becca Valley on July 12, 1985 and on several other occasions.
The refrain has not changed in nineteen years. A recent January
2004 article published in the Jerusalem Post states Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering invading the Becca
Valley, which is still controlled by Syria.

[39] The only example of this
possibility I have found so far is in the work of Dominionist
Gary North who wrote tirelessly on the correlations between conservative
economic principles and the Old Testament laws and rules. See
Gary North, The Covenantal Wealth of Nations, from
Biblical Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No 2, February/March
1999. It can be read at: http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bet/bet99.02.htm
See also an article by J. Ligon Duncan, III, Moses
Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological
Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, Premise,
Vol. II, Number 5, May 27, 1995, page 4 and on the web at: http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html
Ligon states: ...Reconstructionism is attempting to make
a systematic and exegetical connection between the Bible and
the conservative ideology of limited government and free market
economics. For instance, Gary North has written volume after
volume deriving principles of economics from his studies of the
Pentateuch.

[40] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss
and the American Right, St. Martins Press, 1999 at
page 11-13.

[42] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss
and the American Right, St. Martins Press, 1999 at
page 23.

[43] Im indebted to Patricia
J. Williams, Professor of law at Columbia University for this
insight. See her article, Infallible Justice, The
Nation; October 7, 2002 at http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20021007&s=williams
Not only is the concept of original intent
brilliant and revolutionary, it in fact goes further than any
other political format to legitimize the conversion of present
day jurisprudence back to the judicial weltanschauung (world
view) of eighteenth century jurists. It is the key factor in
the Dominionists intent to establish biblical law over
all Americans. Two Supreme Court justices subscribe to it already.
In other words, as Law Professor Patricia J. Williams has pointed
out, the rule would effectively repeal most of the judicial decisions
made in the last century.

[44] Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss
and the American Right, St. Martins Press, 1999 at
page 106.

[46] See the excerpts from my
book, The New Messiahs which trace the political machinations
of the Dominionists within the Republican Party and the plot
to take over all three branches of the government of the United
States.

[47] J. Ligon Duncan, III Moses
Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological
Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, Premise,
Vol. II Number 5, May 27, 1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.

[48] Social Darwinism is the discredited
extension of Darwins evolutionary theory to the human social
condition. Social Darwinism takes Charles Darwins concept,
the survival of the fittest, and applies it to the
idea that the ladder to material wealth and to the good
life may be climbed only after one has successfully engaged
in group battles and conflicts and prevailed in the pit of life
by drop kicking ones opponents. Those who climb out of
the pit and up the ladder become the socially recognized victors
in the competition and are considered biologically superior to
those who fail. The illogical fallout from this concept is the
circular argument that the existence of a socially elite class
must be proof that those who possess wealth and power are necessarily
superior to those in economic classes below them.

[49] Dominionists may argue with
some credibility that they do believe in helping the poor; however,
they want churches to undertake that task and adamantly fight
against government social aid programs funded from tax moniesunless
of courseit is a so-called faith based initiative.
Pat Robertson forgot his objections to the government handing
out money and gratefully accepted the $500,000 Mr. Bush sent
him early in his administration for good faith based charitable
work. Regardless of their protestations, however, the churches
of America cannot and do not have the billions of dollars to
provide the social safety net for the poor, elderly and sick
among Americas population. In 1985, for example, Robertson
bragged CBN gave $50 million worth of food, clothes, and supplies
to 8.5 million people, but that was what he called leveraged
contributions, in which CBN had joined with other charities.
Robertson admitted they gave only $10 million. Deducting the
$2 million of CBNs contributions to the Contras in Central
America, CBNs total contribution amounted to only about
eighty-eight cents to every hungry, needy person he said CBN
helped.

[50] Pat Robertson wrote in The
Secret Kingdom: Unhappily, evangelical Christians have
for too long reduced the born-again experience to the issue of
being saved. Salvation is an important issue, obviously,
and must never be deemphasized. But rebirth must be seen as a
beginning, not an arrival. It provides access to the invisible
world, the kingdom of God, of which we are to learn and experience
and then share with others. Jesus Himself said it clearly before
His ascension: All authority has been given to Me in heaven
and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded
you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
age. [Matthew 28:18-20 New American Standard Bible]. The
commission was to make followers and learnersconvertsand
to teach them the principles of the kingdom. Entry into the body
of believers was not enough. They were to learn how to live in
this world The invisible was to rule the visible. Christ
has authority over both. Emphasis is Robertsons.
(p. 51)

[54] Ibid. On November 6, 2004,
in response from a letter to the editor, I changed the following
sentences in the original text: Taking
his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued, a democratic government,
being nothing more than the composite will of its individual
citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as
individuals. Democracy, according
to Scalia, creates problems, It fosters civil disobedience. This passage was changed to:

[58] Ibid. The original text read
as follows: Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia argued,
a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite
will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority
than they do as individuals. Democracy,
according to Scalia, creates problems, It fosters civil
disobedience.

The original text was corrected
to the following: Taking his cue from Leo Strauss, Scalia
argued, a democratic government, being seen as 'nothing more
than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more
moral power or authority than they do as individuals... Democracy, according to Scalia, creates problems:
It can foster civil
disobedience. (The link takes the reader to the full
discussion in the Yurica Report's Mailbag.)

1. GOVERNMENT:
We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government
property, and freedom from government interference. Support government
display of Ten Commandments.

Dispel the "myth"
of the separation of church and state. A strong and vibrant private
sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation.
Oppose Campaign Finance Reform. Oppose any form of gun control.
Abolish: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Position
of Surgeon General; EPA; Department of Energy; Department of
Housing and Urban Development; Department of Education; Department
of Commerce and Labor; National Endowment for the Arts.

3. UNITED NATIONS:
.. We immediately rescind our membership in, as well
as all financial and military contributions to the United Nations."
We should " ... evict the United Nations from the United
States and eliminate any further participation.

4. FAMILY: We believe
that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between
a man and a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational
unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood,
marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own
welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property.

The
practice of sodomy tears at the heart of our society... The party
oppose[s] decriminalization of sodomy. Oppose all forms
of abortion - even in cases of rape or incest. We unequivocally
oppose United States Senate ratification of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child.

5. EDUCATION: We call
for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and the
prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other
federal agency.

Support
official prayer in public schools Oppose Early Childhood Development
Programs. We support ... a program based upon biblical principles...
Terminate bilingual education. Since Secular Humanism is recognized
by the United States Supreme Court as a religion ... Secular
Humanism should be subjected to the same state and federal laws
as any other recognized religions.

6. THE ENVIRONMENT:
Oppose the myth of global warming. Reaffirm
the belief in the fundamental right of an individual to use property
without governmental interference. Oppose EPA management of Texas
air quality.

7. THE MIDDLE EAST:
... Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ... therefore, the United
States should move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

To read the complete Texas
GOP Platform click here to go to a PDF file: more

[61] J. Ligon Duncan, III Moses
Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological
Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, Premise,
Vol. II Number 5, May 27, 1995. http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html.

Katherine Yurica was educated at East Los
Angeles College, U.S.C. and the USC school of law. She worked
as a consultant for Los Angeles County and as a news correspondent
for Christianity Today plus as a freelance investigative
reporter. She is the author of three books. She is also the publisher
of the Yurica Report.

Katherine Yurica recorded and transcribed
1,300 pages of Pat Robertsons television show, The 700
Club covering several years in the mid 1980s. In 1987
she conducted a study in response to informal inquiries from
the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Ways
and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representives, which
was investigating whether television and radio ministries were
violating their tax-exempt status by conducting grass roots political
appeals, endorsing candidates, and making political expenditures
as defined under Section 527 of the IRS code. The Subcommittee
on Oversight published Katherine's study in Federal Tax Rules
Applicable to Tax-Exempt Organizations Involving Television Ministries
on October 6, 1987, Serial 100-43. (Published in 1988.)

You can order Shadia Drury's excellent
book from Amazon.com by clicking on
the cover. Once at Amazon, type in the
author's name or type the title into the
search box under books. The title is: Leo
Strauss and the American Right

Frederick Clarkson is a widely
published journalist, author and lecturer who specializes in
the Radical Right.